Refereed Conference Paper - USQ ePrints

National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy www.EnglishLiteracyConference.com.au Adelaide 6-9th July 2008

Refereed Conference Paper This paper was accepted for the conference via a blind refereeing process established by the Conference Planning Committee on behalf of ALEA and AATE Title Professional conversations: Teacher educators making sense of literacy pedagogies Author(s) Robyn Henderson and Shauna Petersen Abstract This paper will describe the process of professional or pedagogical conversations that was used by a team of teacher educators to reflect on their literacy pedagogies and their practices as the ‘teachers’ of future literacy teachers. Through these conversations, the teacher educators discussed their understandings of literacies within the broader contested field of literacies education and found ways of working with diversity within a team approach to teaching. The paper will also provide details of the themes and issues that emerged during one conversation and will demonstrate how this process enabled the team to engage in ongoing professional development as it designed, implemented, evaluated and redesigned learning opportunities for pre‐service teachers. Keywords authoritative pedagogy, literacy pedagogies, pedagogy, personal pedagogy, professional conversations, professional development, teacher education, team work, tertiary education Author contact information Dr Robyn Henderson Faculty of Education University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD 4350 Email: [email protected]

Shauna Petersen Faculty of Education University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD 4350 Email: [email protected]

Professional conversations: Teacher educators making sense of literacy pedagogies Robyn Henderson and Shauna Petersen Introduction It is widely recognised that the field of literacy education is a contested one. This is particularly evident in the Australian media which, over the past few years, has continued to debate a so‐called literacy crisis. As argued by Luke and Woods (2007), literacy education ‘remains a contentious policy and pedagogic issue for communities, schools, systems, teachers and students – and politicians’ (p. 5). While such debates can be unsettling, and even annoying, for those working as literacy teachers or teacher educators, they also highlight the need for ongoing consideration and discussion about what constitutes literacies and appropriate pedagogies for literacy learning. For the teacher educators who are the focus of this paper, pedagogical conversations or discussions around the contestation of ‘literacy’ have become a regular activity. While these conversations may not seem to be anything particularly out of the ordinary, they have played a significant role in enabling members of the literacy team of our faculty to discuss and analyse the authoritative pedagogies that are foundational to the literacy courses they teach and to articulate personal pedagogies in relation to literacy education (Andrews & Crowther, 2003). We identify personal pedagogies as personally held beliefs and values about the learning and teaching of literacies and authoritative pedagogies as the ‘recognised’ pedagogies that come from authoritative sources, such as experts, text books and research. We were particularly interested in the authoritative pedagogies that have been incorporated into the personal pedagogies of those who work in literacy education in Queensland and provide justifiable frames (in the academic sense of drawing on relevant literature) for particular approaches to the learning and teaching of literacies. Specific examples are the multiliteracies pedagogies of The New London Group (1996), the Learning by Design work of Kalantzis and Cope that examined the application of multiliteracies pedagogies to classroom teaching (see Healy, 2008; Kalantzis, Cope, & the Learning by Design Project Group, 2005) and the Productive Pedagogies work conducted in Queensland (Department of Education, Queensland, 2001). We recognise, however, that there is a dialectical relationship between personal pedagogies and authoritative pedagogies and that the two are not mutually exclusive. This process of conversations has helped to develop a successful team approach to literacy education and to focus on the development of shared pedagogies (Andrews & Crowther, 2003), while continuing to acknowledge the team’s diversity. Because some members of the team have been involved in the Innovative Designs for Enhancing Achievement in Schools (IDEAS) Project (see Crowther & the IDEAS Project Team, 1999) and have been using the model developed by Andrews and Crowther, the pedagogical conversations were an iteration of the IDEAS Project’s ‘professional conversations’ used in a tertiary context. The model, then, was a choice of convenience. This is not to say, of course, that other forms of professional or pedagogical conversations would not have been applicable. Henderson, Robyn & Petersen, Shauna. Professional conversations 2008 National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy www.englishliteracyconference.com.au

Page 1

This paper focuses on the process used by the team to engage in pedagogical conversations. In describing the process, we demonstrate how important it is for those working in the contested field of literacy to examine their beliefs and practices in a supportive environment and to make space and time available for such conversations to occur. While team approaches to planning literacy learning are often used in schools, our experiences suggest that the work of academics is often conducted in isolation. The paper will begin by describing the context within which the pedagogical conversations were established as a team activity. It will locate the conversations as a useful professional development process within relevant literature and present excerpts of one conversation to illustrate the benefits of the process in establishing shared understandings about literacy education. We conclude the paper by arguing that pedagogical conversations offer a process for sharing ideas. They also ensure that teacher educators continue to examine and reflect on what they believe about the teaching and learning of literacies as they design, implement, evaluate and redesign learning opportunities for pre‐service teachers. Contextualising the pedagogical conversations The pedagogical conversations were an unexpected by‐product of a project that developed as part of a Teaching and Learning Development Grant within our university. We had applied for the grant because of a widely expressed view in our faculty that large numbers of pre‐service teachers in a particular cohort were ‘disengaged’ from learning, were not attending lectures and tutorials, and were over‐committed to paid work thus spending limited time on their university study. With these comments in mind, our grant project set out to investigate how third year pre‐service teachers engaged with the learning opportunities that were provided by a core, double credit point literacy curriculum course within their education degree (for further information, see Henderson & Petersen, 2007). One of the benefits of being involved in the teaching‐research grant project was the opportunity for the team to meet on a regular basis to discuss the collection, analysis and interpretation of data in relation to the engagement of pre‐service teachers in learning. That process facilitated opportunities to talk about the pedagogies of literacy education and to work towards the development of a team pedagogical approach. As the project progressed, its focus shifted from an examination of pre‐service teachers’ engagement in learning towards an investigation of pedagogies that would enhance pre‐service teachers’ learning to be teachers of literacies. The team comprised four full‐time academics. Three members worked on one of the university’s three campuses, whilst the other member worked at another. As part of the ‘work’ surrounding the Learning and Teaching Development Grant, the team had formal, face‐to‐face meetings approximately once per month. The pedagogical conversations were generally conducted over a one hour time period as part of this regular meeting. Initially, the conversations were not recorded. However, we quickly realised that important data about the team’s development and the progress of the pedagogical conversations were being lost. From the third meeting, a digital recorder was used to record the conversation component of the meeting. All of the transcript excerpts that are used in this paper come from that first recorded conversation. The decision to draw on such a narrow set of data was

Henderson, Robyn & Petersen, Shauna. Professional conversations 2008 National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy www.englishliteracyconference.com.au

Page 2

a deliberate move, as we want to show how a single conversation worked in this particular context. The names of the team members have not been provided, as the focus is upon the shared understandings that were developing during the conversational process. The purpose of this paper is to describe the process that occurred and to indicate how important these conversations were to the professional development of the academics involved. In today’s economic rationalist climate, where academics’ work is measured in terms of research outputs and the number of students taught, opportunities for the discussion of pedagogical issues are often limited. The process described here allowed this small group of academics to unpack and articulate their beliefs and values about the learning and teaching of literacies and to begin to see the connections and disjunctures that existed within and between their beliefs. The excerpts of conversations used in this paper offer insights into aspects of the subject matter that was discussed and the potential of the process to probe, clarify and extend pedagogical understandings. To some extent, this paper is a celebration of that process. The selection of data has been deliberate in that sections with some coherence have been chosen. There is no intention to provide an overview or analysis of the whole process as such. Indeed, an overall analysis of the conversations would indicate how ‘messy’ and disorganised such a process can be. The purpose of this paper, however, is to demonstrate the potential of a relatively simple process to prompt academic discussion and to connect academic staff through professional or pedagogical conversations about aspects of their everyday ‘work’. Background to the conversations Traditionally, the work of teachers and teacher educators has been conducted in isolation. Even though collaboration amongst teachers has become commonplace for practices like planning, Kremenitzer & Myler (2006) point out that most classroom (or tutorial room) teaching activities tend to be ‘done alone’ and that collaborative approaches require a commitment from all team members and the setting aside of time for this purpose. While there is plenty of evidence that suggests that cross‐sector collaborations between teacher educators and teachers bring mutual benefits (e.g. Kremenitzer & Myler, 2006; Peter‐ Koop, Santos‐Sagner, Breen, & Begg, 2003), most of the team development work that has been conducted within universities has tended to focus on the formation of communities of practice (e.g. McDonald & Star, 2006; Witt, McDermott, Peters, & Stone, 2007). In the grant project being described in this paper, however, the formation of a group with common interests was not an issue. The group already existed and shared common interests in literacies and the preparation of future teachers of literacies. What became important to the group was the decision to make time available so that the team could engage in face‐to‐face dialogue about these interests, thus focusing the group’s attention on the process of the dialogue itself. Research on team learning has suggested that dialogue in conversational form is a most effective practice for encouraging ‘team learning’ (Senge, Cambron‐McCabe, Lucas, Smith,


Page 3

Dutton & Kleiner, 2000, p. 75). As Senge and his co‐writers emphasised, the process of engaging in dialogue around a common interest allows the participants to: learn how to think together – not just in the sense of analyzing a shared problem or creating new pieces of shared knowledge but in the sense of occupying a collective sensibility, in which the thoughts, emotions, and resulting actions belong not to one individual, but to all of them together. (p. 75) Dialogue has been recognised as a way of building capacity and effecting change in schools (e.g. Senge et al., 2000; Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, Roth & Smith, 1999). By adapting a set of guidelines developed by Isaacs and Smith (1994) and Senge et al. (2000), the group of ‘literacy’ academics engaged in ‘a sustained collective inquiry into everyday experience and what we take for granted’ (Senge et al., 2000, p. 75). This process included an invitation process, where all members of the team had a choice whether to participate or not, as well as opportunities for participants to ‘‘suspend’ their assumptions’ and explore them ‘from new angles’ (Isaacs & Smith, 1994, p. 375; Senge et al., 2000, pp. 75‐76). There was no agenda for these meetings other than an opportunity to share and discuss a range of pedagogical issues related to the teaching of future teachers of literacies. Similarly, no one prepared for the meetings (Senge et al., 2000), except to agree on a time and place and to make sure that someone brought a digital recorder to record the conversation. The group generally met for a coffee before adjourning to a quiet room to engage in conversation. As suggested by Senge et al., this was a way of avoiding distractions. The conversations were facilitated by a member of the project team who was not a member of the literacy team. The facilitator’s role was to encourage participants to reflect deeply on pedagogical considerations. For the literacy team, it was important to make sense of these reflections in relation to learning opportunities for pre‐service teachers. The work of Isaacs and Smith (1994) and Senge et al. (2000) on dialogue has been utilised in the IDEAS school revitalisation approach operating in numerous Australian schools (see Andrews, Conway, Dawson, Lewis, McMaster, Morgan & Starr, 2004; Andrews & Crowther, 2003; Crowther & the IDEAS Project Team, 1999; Lewis, 2006). As part of this revitalisation approach, Andrews and Crowther (2003; see also Andrews et al., 2004) suggest a framework which they call 3‐Dimensional Pedagogy. The framework allows ‘teachers to engage in dialogue where deeply embedded pedagogical practices are shared and new levels of pedagogical insight can be generated’ (Andrews et al., 2004, p. 14). For the literacy team, this framework offered a way of recognising the authoritative pedagogies and theories informing their work in literacies education and each member’s personal pedagogical understandings, thereby facilitating the development of shared knowledges and meanings. As shown in Figure 1, which is an adaptation of a figure in the work of Andrews and Crowther (2003, p. 102), the three dimensions of pedagogy are framed within a range of contextual factors. The framework offers a way of understanding ‘autonomous individual(s) with highly specialised personal pedagogical interests and capabilities’ within a collaborative and ‘dynamic professional community’ (Andrews & Crowther, 2003, p. 101). As stated earlier, the decision to use the Andrews and Crowther framework (2003) was based on convenience, as some of the group members had used this approach as part of their roles in the IDEAS Project. Henderson, Robyn & Petersen, Shauna. Professional conversations 2008 National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy www.englishliteracyconference.com.au

Page 4

Figure 1: An adaptation of the work of Andrews and Crowther (2003) on 3‐ Dimensional Pedagogy

Contextual influences – professional, cultural, community, societal, systemic

Authoritative pedagogies

Shared pedagogies

Personal pedagogies

It has been recognised generally that the formation of a professional identity is core to the process of ‘becoming’ a teacher. While research has focused on the processes that enable pre‐ service teachers to develop their professional identities as teachers (e.g. Alsup, 2005; Newman, 2000), there seems to have been an assumption that identity formation is not an essential consideration for teacher educators themselves. However, this topic became an important one as the group of academics began to share and make explicit the authoritative and personal pedagogies that influenced their approaches to literacy education (Andrews & Crowther, 2003). The conversations: Authoritative, personal and shared pedagogies The conversations tended to focus on literacies pedagogies and how academic staff could create conditions within which pre‐service teachers would engage with learning about literacy learning. Throughout the discussion that is the focus in this paper, all three types of pedagogies were evident, although authoritative pedagogies were afforded the least amount of time in the professional conversations that we recorded. However, as one participant noted, authoritative pedagogies were often the topic of conversations held in the corridor near the offices of the three academics. Participant 1: But it also highlights how, I think, time‐poor we all are at the moment and how important those professional conversations about our content areas are all the time. I mean, but we’re always joking about how we’re always having conversations in the corridor and you know like there’s nowhere even to sit to have those conversations and they’re often on the run, aren’t they? But it’s amazing how often the three of us are standing outside somebody’s office having a conversation.


Page 5

Participant 2: They know us now. Oh, another literacy meeting people say as they go along the corridor.

Despite authoritative pedagogies receiving little time in the professional conversations, their discussion at other times was regarded as important. As one participant commented, it was important that all members of the team kept up to date: I really appreciate the input that [participant’s name] had in our professional conversations … I think that’s been really valuable to maintain our own discussion and involvement and constantly managing to update on what’s happening within literacy education, which of course is such a hot potato politically. And I think that’s important in order for students to see that in practice in tutes and workshops.

At one point in the conversation, the facilitator asked ‘How well have you had to get to know each other and each other’s pedagogy?’ The team emphasised that the initial arrival of one of the team members at the university had provided an opportunity for a sharing of authoritative and personal pedagogies that informed their practices: Participant 1: Remember when you first came (participant’s name)? … I found that a really good day because it really gave us an insight into what we were all thinking … and (participant’s name) as a new person coming in, you talked about your beliefs and I thought that was really powerful … Participant 2: … we could see from that discussion that we connected quite well in terms of our beliefs.

Personal pedagogies were a major topic of discussion during the ‘formal’ pedagogical conversations. However, the participants found that articulating personal pedagogies was not always an easy task. As one participant stated:

It’s hard to articulate. I mean you do, you sort of think about what’s really important to you as not only a teacher but a person. And I sort of think about ways of working that are collaborative within not only the way I like to work but within the structure of the course. I mean, you draw on the authoritative pedagogies, you know, like your multiliteracies pedagogy and so on. But there’s a lot of underlying stuff there that you bring to that.

The conversations provided opportunities for participants to question each other about their personal pedagogies, to drill down into meaning and to clarify their understandings. These processes are evident in the following excerpt: Participant 1: If you want to set up group work you’ve got to have a set of processes in place and be really explicit about how you introduce that. So it’s just getting them thinking in those terms and actually practising that concept. Participant 2: So in regards to a personal pedagogy, it seems as though you believe that you need to meet the needs of individual students and you reflect on what you’re doing, what’s happening, then work from there. Participant 1: More so the interactions amongst them, the importance of social interaction … and the building of relationships … if you haven’t got that process in place to build those relationships, then the content wasn’t happening in that situation.


Page 6

It was shared pedagogies, however, that dominated the conversations. The transcript below, which presents a longer section of the conversation, provides one example of how the team constructed shared understandings about some of the principles underpinning their teaching of large literacy curriculum courses. In articulating these characteristics, the team was making their beliefs explicit and opening the way for complex discussions about different pedagogical approaches. Facilitator:

So you’re starting to talk about now some of the … course‐wide, team‐wide pedagogy. Could you actually name a few principles or a few sort of points that you would have as a team? That, I’m just thinking, if someone else were to come into this team, you know, what would they have to take on board or what would they have to sort of see as the way in which the team works? Participant 1: I think they’d have to have a sense of the mutual respect that we feel for each other as professionals is really important. Facilitator: How is that played out? Participant 2: Communication I think is essential. Participant 3: Yeah, yes I think they would need to be willing to communicate, open to working in a team, yeah. Participant 4: But there’s also I think a sense of safety, isn’t there? … in those team meetings you could say …I’m not comfortable doing that, and nobody would expect you to do it … I think that the team always draws on people’s strengths and that’s where people are allowed to be strong at some things and weak at others and that’s fine, whereas I don’t think that’s always the case in some teams. Participant 1: And I’ve never felt, like, as a new person coming into the uni and having other more senior people around me, I’ve never felt like within this particular group that, oh you know I’ve got to bow to the more senior members of this group. You know what I mean? You sort of value what each person brings regardless of their level. I look at this group and to me you couldn’t really tell who are the senior academics and who are the, do you know what I mean? There’s no distinction. Participant 4: And I think you’re right. I think there’s a sense that everybody brings different things. I mean it’s probably a lovely example of how diversity works … Participant 2: Even if you have a point of difference. I know that I had a point of difference with (participant’s name) about a content issue and it shocked me how much my point of difference was so clear in my mind about that content issue. But we could talk about that and agree to disagree.

During this section of the conversation, the team identified a number of characteristics that they felt were essential to the team’s effective operations. In particular, mutual respect, open communication, a sense of safety, and an acceptance of diversity and the strengths and weaknesses that each member brought to the team were named. Whilst the excerpts presented in this paper tend to represent the team as a fairly cohesive group, this did not mean that there were no differences of opinion. The advantage of this team approach was that it created a space – in academics’ busy timetables – where different viewpoints could be laid out and discussed. This highlighted the importance of social interactions amongst members of the team. As one participant pointed out, it was acceptable to ‘agree to disagree’.


Page 7

The team’s diversity of views was sometimes related to the members’ experiences outside the university context. For example, one team member had been a Reading Recovery teacher (Clay, 1993) and had worked with individual children within that program for a few years. Another had also worked within Reading Recovery, but had problematised its processes and had published critique of the program (Woods & Henderson, 2002, in press). Discussions around the advantages and disadvantages of programs like Reading Recovery and the effects that such programs have on literacy learning formed part of the content of these conversations. The end of this excerpt, where the discussion turned to differences amongst team members, provides an example of a theme that permeated many of the conversations. The team recognised that each member brought different strengths and that it was acceptable for this diversity to be shared with pre‐service teachers. This was important because the team shared a common belief that successful literacy learning relies on flexible repertoires of literacy practices (Department of Education, Queensland, 2000) and that teachers also need flexible repertoires of teaching practices rather than adhering to a one‐size‐fits‐all approach. As a result, it was seen as quite ‘normal’ to share different perspectives on literacy learning with students. One participant commented that:

The students really like that too. That came out of their feedback on the course. You know, they like having a couple of different perspectives on things and the experiences that we bring just like give that. Implications for teacher education in literacies The excerpts of a pedagogical conversation presented in the previous section offer examples of the types of discussion that occurred around different dimensions of pedagogies (Andrews & Crowther, 2003). While a wide range of pedagogical topics was discussed, one recurring important theme related to the way that teacher educators in the field of literacies need to be aware of their authoritative, personal and shared pedagogies at the same time as modelling appropriate pedagogies for pre‐service teachers. The participants thus acknowledged the complexities that were inherent in their role as teacher educators. As one participant explained:

We’re talking about pedagogy. We’re talking about, and we know that our research is about how we engage students in learning. But for me a critical issue is really, well how do we do that? Which is about our art of teaching. But like you said, there are all those layers. We’re not only looking at teaching from our perspective but we’re also looking at how we teach those students to be teachers who then have to use pedagogy.

As the excerpts above have illustrated, pedagogical conversations provided a useful tool for a team of four academics to make their literacy pedagogies explicit. Even though the process was relatively simple, requiring voluntary participation, no preparation and no agenda, it provided opportunities for the team to share and compare their authoritative and personal pedagogies while, at the same time, building shared understandings around their work as teacher educators in the field of literacies. Henderson, Robyn & Petersen, Shauna. Professional conversations 2008 National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy www.englishliteracyconference.com.au

Page 8

Even though these shared pedagogies offered opportunities to develop collective meanings (Senge et al., 2000), they also enabled an awareness of differences amongst members of the team. In the team’s opinion, this process was useful as it helped to identify strengths which could be used in their teaching of the literacy curriculum courses. For example, individual members had particular interests in the literacies taught in early childhood, children’s literature, the teaching of literacies in relation to students who speak English as a second language, and the relationship between cultural diversity and the learning of literacies. Nevertheless, some of these strengths have also been sources of tension between different conceptualisations of literacies and approaches to literacy learning. As an example, considerations about the place of children’s literature in the teaching of literacies and the relationship of these texts to the cultural practices of particular social groups has been a topic of ongoing (and interesting) conversation. Because the team was used to working together, often in collaborative teaching situations, it was perhaps not surprising that members shared a set of authoritative pedagogies and, on many occasions, their personal pedagogies did not seem all that different. However, the professional conversations provided opportunities to drill deeper into the team’s pedagogical understandings and it was these opportunities that continued to make the conversations so worthwhile. During the conversation that was used as an example in this paper, the facilitator challenged the team by questioning the balance between content and social interactions:

One might sort of start thinking that this course is all about building social relationships and where’s all the content gone. How do you keep that juggle while obviously trying to meet the needs of the students all the time? And that of course is something that you obviously are passionate about. But also then making sure, you know, the course is covered, the content is covered, so the students really do walk away with something about literacy and … what that means for them in their classrooms. I mean it’s a very complex situation.

The facilitator’s challenge highlighted the complexities involved in literacy education. As The New London Group (1996) demonstrated, pedagogy should incorporate considerations of both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’. Although the conversation described in this paper focuses on the ‘how’ of literacies pedagogies and included considerations of the three dimensions of pedagogies (as adapted from Andrews & Crowther, 2003), other conversations addressed the ‘what’ in more detail. The team recognised that they were also trying to balance the unpacking of the three dimensions of their own pedagogies with their responsibility to model successful pedagogies to pre‐service teachers. The process of pedagogical conversations helped to make the team’s practices in relation to those multiple layers more visible than they had been. For the literacy team, the process of pedagogical conversations provided a useful tool for working on the enhancement of learning opportunities for pre‐service teachers in a literacy curriculum course. The potential of such conversations lies in the fostering of conditions that enable deep and shared understandings about multiple pedagogies. Despite the lack of preparation that was required for the conversations to occur, the team acknowledges that Henderson, Robyn & Petersen, Shauna. Professional conversations 2008 National Conference for Teachers of English and Literacy www.englishliteracyconference.com.au

Page 9

time has to be set aside for conversations. With the intensification of work in universities and the time‐poverty that so many academics are experiencing, it appears that teams would need consensus about the privileging of pedagogical conversations as worthwhile activities. From the experiences described above, the benefits are not only in the development of a collegial team but are also in the effects the process can have on enhancing pedagogical understandings which, in turn, impact on the learning of future teachers of literacies. Additionally, the process described above provides insights into aspects of the daily ‘work’ of teacher educators. Whilst the public is so often presented with negative descriptions of teacher educators and the reportedly ‘bad’ job they are doing in relation to preparing literacy teachers, the process of professional and pedagogical conversations provides a different account of teacher educators: an account that highlights a desire for continuing professional development incorporating reflective practice and shared understandings. References Alsup, J. (2005). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Andrews, D., Conway, J., Dawson, M., Lewis, M., McMaster, J., Morgan, A. & Starr, H. (2004). School revitalisation: The IDEAS way. Melbourne: Australian Council for Education Leaders. Andrews, D. & Crowther, F. (2003). 3‐dimensional pedagogy: The image of 21st century teacher professionalism. In F. Crowther (Ed.), Teachers as leaders in a knowledge society: College year book 2003 (pp. 95‐111). Deakin West, ACT: Australian College of Teachers. Clay, M. M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Auckland: Heinemann Education. Crowther, F. & the IDEAS Project Team (1999). The IDEAS Project: Guidelines for exploration and trial in Queensland state schools. Brisbane: Education Queensland. Department of Education (Queensland). (2000). Literate futures: Report of the literacy review for Queensland state schools. Brisbane: Queensland Department of Education. Department of Education (Queensland). (2001). The Queensland school reform longitudinal study: A strategy for shared curriculum leadership. Brisbane: Education Queensland. Healy, A. (Ed.). (2008). Multiliteracies and diversity in education: New pedagogies for expanding landscapes. South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press. Henderson, R. & Petersen, S. (2007). Investigating the engagement of 3rd year tertiary education students in the learning and teaching of literacy. Paper presented at the AATE/ALEA National Conference, Canberra, July 8‐11. Isaacs, W. & Smith, B. (1994). Designing a dialogue session. In P. Senge, A. Kleiner, C. Roberts, R. B. Ross & B. Smith (Eds.), The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization (pp. 374‐381). London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. Kalantzis, M., Cope, B. & the Learning by Design Project Group. (2005). Learning by design. Melbourne: Victorian Schools Innovation Commission & Common Ground Publishing. Kremenitzer, J. P., & Myler, T. (2006). Collaboration between teacher educator and kindergarten teacher: A 4‐year action research study to improve our own professional practices.


Page 10

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3614/is_200604/ai_n17185109/pg_1 Retrieved April 5, 2008. Lewis, M. (2006). Itʹs a different place now: Teacher leadership and pedagogical change at Newlyn Public School. Leading and Managing, 12(1), 107‐120. Luke, A. & Woods, A. (2007). Learning lessons: What no child left behind can teach us about literacy, testing and accountability. QTU Professional Magazine, 22, 5‐10. McDonald, J. & Star, C. (2006). Designing the future of learning through a community of practice of teachers of first year courses at an Australian university. Paper presented at the The First International LAMS Conference: Designing the future of learning, Sydney, December 6‐8. Newman, C. S. (2000). Seeds of professional development in pre‐service teachers: A study of their dreams and goals. International Journal of Educational Research, 33(3), 125‐217. Peter‐Koop, A., Santos‐Sagner, V., Breen, C. & Begg, A. (Eds.). (2003). Collaboration in teacher education: Examples from the context of mathematics. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Senge, P., Cambron‐McCabe, H., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J. & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday. Senge, P., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., Roth, G. & Smith, B. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges of sustaining momentum in learning organizations. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing. The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60‐92. Witt, N., McDermott, A., Peters, M. & Stone, M. (2007). A knowledge management approach to developing communities of practice amongst university and college staff. Paper presented at the Ascilite Conference, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, December 2‐5. Woods, A. & Henderson, R. (2002). Early intervention: Narratives of learning, discipline and enculturation. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 2(3), 243‐268. Woods, A. & Henderson, R. (in press). The early intervention solution: Enabling or constraining literacy learning. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 8(3).


Page 11